Death of Zimbabwe’s Best-Loved Lion Ignites Debate on Sport Hunting

[JustinC]

And trying to compare pets to wild animals (also commonly referred to as GAME) is also not a realistic comparison - most Hunters have a lot more compassion towards their pets and other animals than what many non hunters do. IMO

 

[Dane Quale]

Can you explain that please?

I'm struggling here because the facts are that in countries where hunting takes place, there has been an increase in wildlife numbers and habitat because hunting has put a value on the animals.

In countries where hunting is banned, wildlife populations have decreased because there is no value placed on the animals.

Simply that the money (which came from hunters) is what has lead to conservation and increase in population, not the deaths of the animals for use as trophies. Everyone who spent money could have donated that money on the contingency that the animals not be slaughtered by farmers, be preserved, etc. Which would make hunting the animal for the trophy irrelevant if the motive were purely conservation. How it comes across to outsiders is that the motive is mostly the desire to kill an animal for the sake of killing an animal. The food and obligatory money are merely a way to defend an ulterior motive (conservation interests are there for the ability to be able to kill more animals again, predominantly for the sake of killing animals.)

 

[ThomasBeaham]

Ivan Carter posted this on FB and I thought it fit this current conversation well.

View attachment 45845

Not to mention the innumerable non-game species that benefit from this conservation model.

 

[JGRaider]

I saw a funny bumper sticker going to work this morning....

Vegetarian...Indian word for schitty hunter.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Here's an idea, all the anti-hunters should get together and start buying up all the hunting slots...and just not go. Think about it, if you buy the $50,000 lion hunt and never show up you save a lion. But if they aren't willing to put up the cash than I guess they don't really care about the animals. Until the day photo safari-goers are willing to spend that kind of money to snap pictures of their favorite lion there will be a need for hunting to provide much needed value for these animals.

I find the level of vitriol from the anti-hunting crowd to be unreal. People who had no idea who Cecil the freaking lion was a week ago are now making death threats against a fellow human being. I find it disgusting and illogical for people who claim to want to preserve life (I guess human life doesn't matter) to do this.

Simply that the money (which came from hunters) is what has lead to conservation and increase in population, not the deaths of the animals for use as trophies. Everyone who spent money could have donated that money on the contingency that the animals not be slaughtered by farmers, be preserved, etc. Which would make hunting the animal for the trophy irrelevant if the motive were purely conservation. How it comes across to outsiders is that the motive is mostly the desire to kill an animal for the sake of killing an animal. The food and obligatory money are merely a way to defend an ulterior motive (conservation interests are there for the ability to be able to kill more animals again, predominantly for the sake of killing animals.)

So Nicky's challenge seems to fit right in line with what you're saying Dane. So how about it? Will you non/anti's put up the money or not? Or do you just want to take the easy way out and make a law to satisfy your emotional distress?

 

[bluey]

the money , the money , the money
anti hunting organisations , have much more money pouring into their accounts from the blind masses , than any hunting organisations .
you speak of the 350k ,that correy paid to hunt the old rhino in namibia , at auction , why didn't the anti hunting organisations up his bid , and relocate the rhino you speak of ....
if a hunter pays the fee , he wants to hunt it , for the experience , the meat , the trophy.or what ever .... maybe it is the kill . he justifies ,with putting his money down ........
the bull in question is way past his breeding prime , and a danger to the younger animals of his specie .........his days were numbered ......naturally.....
that money went straight to anti poaching in Namibia .....
the hater and the antihunters , were all over this guy from the time the auction was over .
why didn't they put in a bigger bid , at the time ,and relocate this over the hill monarch, and do this relocating ...
there no rule in these hunters auctions that they cant put in a bid and do just that , they have millions of dollars coming for doing next to nothing .except advertising , where is all there money , why don't they put it where there mouth is ?

sorry , bit rude of me , welcome to AH ,dane ...........

 

[Deleted member 15212]

If you'd like my perspective i'll share.

ill be honest, that's all I read. thanks for your time.

 

[S.W. Smith]

As I said before, anyone eating meat is guilty of having blood on their hands. I know and have come across plenty of people who will freely admit it and many will boast about how much they enjoy eating meat. I do not believe all or most hunters are ruthless killing machines to be clear. It is factually incorrect to say that no matter what you eat you kill though. I also believe that if you are a hunter who kills quickly and as painlessly and responsibly as possible to eat the animal you are still by definition a sort of killer, albeit in another class and not the same, by any means, as someone who kills a deer, puppy, anything, for no reason other than boredom, fun, etc. By definition you are killing the animal, that's an indisputable fact unless you argue the semantics. That's not what I want to focus on though.

I understand people who enjoy meat but the reality is humans can live and flourish without eating meat. There are extremely fit vegan athletes that are more athletic than most people. Its possible. Eating meat is a lifestyle choice and not a necessity for life.

You have selected a specific case which promotes your point, which is valid - eating vegetables doesn't absolve you of having death on your hands. Let me even help make your point - even large corporate farms are guilty of using what is near modern day slavery when employing workers to tend the fields. Large tractor often catch animals in their path when plowing or picking wheat, etc. These are two ways large corporate farming is detrimental to its environment and animal and human life. But where does a lot of this food go? To feed animals. The billions of animals farmed yearly are herbivores. An 8 lb chicken eats much more than 8 lbs of grain in a lifetime.

Now to say vegetarians didn't jump on this guy for doing what he did and the hunters did is disingenuous and self serving. Most vegetarians don't eat meat for ethical reasons and plenty of vegetarians and non vegetarian non hunters dedicate their lives to fighting animal abuse. If this particular story didn't catch wind of a group of activist vegetarians that's hardly a representation.

If you genuinely believe more animals are killed to feed vegetarians than hunters kill I don't know what to tell you other than you should do some real research and better educate yourself. There are plenty of very sustainable, ethical, usually organic farms run by people who oppose cruelty and unnecessary death and would probably cuddle those pigs and post pictures to their facebook and forums. I have a small garden in my that produces a decent amount of food, its new, and I can guarantee not a single animal has died as a result in the 3 months its been growing. I know someone who volunteered on a farm large enough to easily sustain all 10 people living on it with lots of food to spare and in a years time a dear was shot and eaten and thats it.

You hunt every night and you truly suspect this guy is trapping 18 pigs in less than 18 days on a consistent basis thereby causing more death than a vegetarian? I don't think so if so its probably an exception. SO even if eating vegetables doesn't absolve you, quantity is extremely relevant. A vegetarian who indirectly is involved in the death of 18 animals a year, along with every other vegetarian and meat eater who got veggies from that farm, as well as everyone who ate an animal who was fed with those veggies, isn't causing more death.


All of this is off topic of my original point which is killing animals for fun or trophies is vain, cruel, and needless. Do you have a reasoning against that?

Using outliers in the vegan community, such as "extreme fit vegans" is a very disingenuous argument. If you took a sample of ten-thousand meat eaters and ten-thousand vegans, I would bet the meat eaters would be far and away more healthy than the vegans. But then again we really get into the argument of semantics over the word "healthy." Genetics and lifestyles play a major factor in the health of an individual. Dr. Rhonda Patrick recently expounded upon a massive study that showed using a sauna daily took great measures to prevent diseases despite lifestyle and diet, claiming a certain type of protein being produced when the body was under extreme duress prevented negative effects of aging on the body. The point is, we could argue all day the benefits of eating both but the reality is the nutrients from eating lean, wild meat are far easier to attain than trying to live on a vegan diet. This isn't to say vegan diets aren't sustainable, though there is far more data over hundreds of thousands of years showing the success of meat eating diets.

Saying eating meat is a lifestyle choice isn't anymore fair than saying choosing to eat plants is a lifestyle choice. There have even been recent studies published that plants may be intelligent, therefore pulling one from the ground is no less an act of killing than ethically harvesting game. Life eats life, that's how it works. We are omnivores, not herbivores; our bodies function at their best when fed moderate diets of both meat and plant products. Over-consumption of anything will lead to negative results.

I did not state that trophy meat wasn't eaten. I'm away the meat is sometimes, I do not know the actual frequency but I'm lead to believe often, eaten. That doesn't speak to the fact that the animal is killed for the trophy and for the joy of the kill. I do not believe trophy hunters are driven by an altruistic desire to feed poor locals. I don't believe any trophy hunter would list that reason at the top of the list. It would be very detrimental and nonsensical to let the meat rot though. It probably costs little to nothing to let someone know the meat is available for the taking. Just as I do not believe a prime motive is for conservation other than for the ability to hunt offspring. People who's prime motive is to let the animal reproduce would refrain from killing it. People with that sort of attachment to the animal would feel wrong killing it just as most people would feel wrong killing and eating a pet. You don't kill something you genuinely care about when other options exist. When a species is threatened and you can donate money and allow the animal to live or donate for the opportunity to kill it, such as an elephant or rhino or lion, why would you choose to kill it? For the meat? Why not kill a buffalo? Why not put the money toward relocating it if it is genuinely threatening local members of its species? How did the species deal with these threats when the numbers were higher and humans hadn't culled members to allow the species to grow and population naturally grew? IN the case of the black rhino that was killed for $350k why not pay to move it far enough away thats its not a threat or to an enclosure where it could live out the rest of its days in relative peace or bring in tourist money as one of the last of its kind?

As for the numbers I haven't studied that aspect yet although I plan to. I don't know what outside factors exist (how the regions differ, how much poaching went on, natural challenges such as water or lack of prey). Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Regulated hunting could have been beneficial but that doesn't mean other strategies wouldn't have been more beneficial, especially if all hunters supported in the same way out of caring for the animal rather than the desire to hunt. Why haven't all these hunter given all this money to hunt without the privilege of hunting. The answer is because hunters, first and foremost want to kill the animals, they want the trophy, they the feeling of dominating an animal and if they didn't history would show that the same money and effort would have been donated regardless of the the ability desire to hunt the animal.

So let me ask you, first and foremost, why do you trophy hunt?

Using Corey Knowlton as an example of trophy hunting is not only extremely ignorant but also distasteful. You don't know Corey Knowlton and you don't know his reason for taking that animal. If you do your research you would know that Corey loves animals and has a deep reverence and respect for the nature in which they live. It seems very counter-intuitive I know, but hunting and hunters are the reason you have animals, because we can cull the weak, old, and sick. We are the true stewards of the environment. Knowlton's hunt was under an extreme microscope by the hunting community and its authorities. The 180+ nations of CITES agreed this rhino had to die. The IUCN agreed this rhino had to die. The United States Fish and Game services agreed this rhino had to die. Do you really think if they could have relocated this threatened (not endangered in Namibia) rhino they wouldn't have? This rhino was going to die, either by the governments hands or by poachers. Both of those options benefited no one. Corey killed this animal and donated more than $350,000 to conservation efforts in Africa, not to mention fed an entire village protein they would literally kill for. Living in the United States we are very privileged to have a protein surplus. Go to Africa and tell them eating meat is a choice and how they should subsist on plants instead. I wonder if you think GMO's are bad too.

 

[Dane Quale]

Here's an idea, all the anti-hunters should get together and start buying up all the hunting slots...and just not go. Think about it, if you buy the $50,000 lion hunt and never show up you save a lion. But if they aren't willing to put up the cash than I guess they don't really care about the animals. Until the day photo safari-goers are willing to spend that kind of money to snap pictures of their favorite lion there will be a need for hunting to provide much needed value for these animals.

I find the level of vitriol from the anti-hunting crowd to be unreal. People who had no idea who Cecil the freaking lion was a week ago are now making death threats against a fellow human being. I find it disgusting and illogical for people who claim to want to preserve life (I guess human life doesn't matter) to do this.

Yes that would be great. Unfortunately the support or organization isn't there, or the urgency isn't realized because it isn't happening. Although paying the government directly would be the logical way to go about it. Unfortunately corruption is a real problem too....

To be clear the sensible people aren't arguing that hunting is wrong, its the hunting for fun and killing for the sake of killing, thriving on the kill itself is wrong. Killing should be a necessary part of life at worst and shouldn't be glorified. I don't condone the death threats, I haven't made any, I've only suggested the poachers be held legally responsible for what they've done. As for why they occur? (To be clear again, I in no way condone that behaviour) Well my *guess* is that most if not all are completely empty threats, most people making them probably couldn't take a life if they had to and the safety net of being anonymous makes it easy to let out anger unrestricted. Its very common on the internet for people to unleash rage on other people and the internet is much worse off for it. I'm sure if you've ever seen a youtube video you can see how someone doing something as benign as a skateboard trick can turn into the most racist discussion you can imagine). The other reason would be that people see someone who enjoys killing an animal not out of necessity, but out of the pure fact they they've taken a life and "conquered" this animal. They simply wanted to show they have the power. So naturally a hot headed person wants to reverse the situation and say "well if you have no respect for the life of this animal and kill without reason, how would you like the same to happen to you? A person who thinks that way is detrimental to humanity. Again, I'll reiterate, this is my understanding of their mindset and these aren't my personal views. I don't think these conclusions are difficult to come to either and I don't think I'm telling you something you haven't already considered. Even a user on this forum who appeared to be an avid hunter said something about "we should take their guns so they can't do that, hmmm, thats what they say about us...."

Adverse reaction to hunting exists and some of its doesn't make any sense. I had a person tell me that they think eating meat from a supermarket is normal and they would date a person who did but not a hunter (although they were vegetarian but not because they cared for life of the animal, its how they were raised and meat didn't register as food although they were free to eat it). I said hunting was more ethical compared to factory farming. The animal has lived a natural life. She told me its you'd have to be psychotic to hunt an animal but eating a farm slaughtered animal that was likely abused is perfectly acceptable! I was offended by how ridiculous and misdirected her comment was.

Of this magnitude never comes from these people who are confronted with a hunt for food of a species that isn't under threat and is typically eaten (deer). though. This is unique to hunting for sport (which is a funny term, as sport implies the other party knows its involved.)

I don't see the relevance of knowing who Cecil was beforehand, do you have to know every lion, tiger, elephant, every animal on earth to care that it is slaughtered for fun? On a related note, do you read about a mugging and say "hmm, didn't know them, so who cares?" or do you still sympathize without knowing the individual? I'd hope and assume the latter.

What it seems trophy hunters cannot generally understand is the broader feeling of being linked to and caring for animals in general in the way that other people do. Someone said theres a difference between game and a dog you own, which I agree with completely, but I still don't want to see the game slaughtered for a reason as bad as a desire to satisfy one's ego. Ever see a chimpanzee hunt down and kill a monkey and literally tear it apart? Its cruel and I'd rather it didn't happen, even when they eat it. Its unnecessary. Some people are trying to paint me as a person who cries for every animal that dies and whatever else satisfies them. Thats not me and a rational person would agree that its not strange to be apposed to unnecessary cruelty and death. When I think of a bear I don't think "wow i'd love to shoot that" if anything I think "I'd love to interact with that" or observe it. How can you compare something like this:

to shooting it with a rifle. Being able to shoot something isn't very unique, it doesn't take much skill in comparison (i'm not arguing there aren't difficult shots and that there's absolutely no skill involved), and can't be as rewarding. I've shot targets and thats as close as I've come to shooting an animal. But statistically speaking the number of people who can do this with a lion

versus shoot it from a distance, its no comparison. One is much more skillful. Anyway, I am not saying this put down the skill of shooting or hunting, I'm saying that its always appealed more to me to be able to learn how to understand and interact with an animal rather than dominate it needlessly. My experience in life.

 

[Deleted member 15212]

 

[ThomasBeaham]

That "interaction" didn't work out too well for Timothy Treadwell. Just saying...

 

[S.W. Smith]

That "interaction" didn't work out too well for Timothy Treadwell. Just saying...

 

[Adrian]

Simply that the money (which came from hunters) is what has lead to conservation and increase in population, not the deaths of the animals for use as trophies. Everyone who spent money could have donated that money on the contingency that the animals not be slaughtered by farmers, be preserved, etc. Which would make hunting the animal for the trophy irrelevant if the motive were purely conservation. How it comes across to outsiders is that the motive is mostly the desire to kill an animal for the sake of killing an animal. The food and obligatory money are merely a way to defend an ulterior motive (conservation interests are there for the ability to be able to kill more animals again, predominantly for the sake of killing animals.)

So what you would like me to do is not travel to Africa this weekend and instead contact the outfitter I'm booked with and tell him I'm not coming after all but please use my money to save a kudu, a gemsbock, a springbok and zebra.

Hmm.

I guess my money will save them from old age and predation and illness? It's ridiculous.
The animals have value. If they pay, they stay, simple as that.

If there was no hunting on the concession, how would the people living there make a living? What would happen to the environment and habitat? How would those living on the land feed themselves?

The truth is, my money will go towards providing income, food, security and will contribute to the preservation of a wilderness from the largest mammal to the smallest insect. All in return for the lives of some mature animals that would likely starve to death, fall ill and die slowly within a couple of years.

You see trophy hunting, I say wildlife management and the trophy is a by product of the experience.

 

[ThomasBeaham]

That "interaction" didn't work out too well for Timothy Treadwell. Just saying...

Forgive me, I failed to mention it didn't work out too well for the bear as well...

 

[S.W. Smith]

Forgive me, I failed to mention it didn't work out too well for the bear as well...

Two bears actually. A second young male was killed near where Treadwell died when it charged park rangers.

 

[Big5]

I generally find anti's to be dishonest as hell. Their agenda is to take any situation and play on the emotional aspect rather than address the facts. The topic of this thread was about how a wild lion that primarily inhabited and roamed Zimbabwe’s Hwange Park was killed by a hunting party. As usual the primary anti-hunter goal doesn't seem to be focused on the legality of the hunt, but to once again play on people's emotion.

Even though the subject animal (I refuse to call it by a pet name) was a wild lion it was given a pet name. Anti's know that if the lion is called Cecil, Max, Leo or Fido it can be more easily humanized, or at the very least can be portrayed as a domesticated animal akin to a household pet such as a dog.

People most commonly feed household pets from a dish, they train them, they restrain them on leashes, the contain them in houses or yards and they make them a part of the family. Domesticated pets are loyal and they will come running when you whistle for them. We love our pets and we often get emotion about them. Well, I hate to burst any politically correct Lala Land bubbles, but this lion had nothing in common with a pet dog other than it had four legs and a tail. It was not a domesticated pet animal, it was a wild animal.

Once again, the lion in question was a wild animal that was generally known to inhabit the interior of a park where it was protected. Let's also not forget that it wasn't the only lion that roamed within the park boundary. It is quite likely that during the course of its long life there had been other occasions when it and other lions roamed beyond the park boundary without incident. Well, this time there was an incident. Furthermore, upon spotting the lion were the hunters expected to whistle and approach it in an attempt to first check for a county license tag or owner contact information before hunting it?

I reject being sidetracked from the real issue with the emotionally based gibberish being shoveled by the anti hunting crowd. To me the issue here has to do with the legality of the hunt. I am therefore content to wait and see if the hunters obtained proper licensing, were they in a geographical location where hunting was allowed and did they follow all appropriate hunting regulations? If they did, I congratulate them. If they did not, I say prosecute them appropriately based upon facts alone.

Leave the unnecessary emotional nonsense out of it and lets see where the investigation goes.

 

[Wheels]

What will the shake out be for the participants?



Palmer:

Dental practice probably in ruins.

Zimbabwe won't imprison him. There would be a drastic loss in hunting revenue. Possibly fined. Will never receive another Visa.

USFW/Lacey Act. With this administration and their interpretation of the Lacey Act, this could be real scary.



Bronkhorst:

Livelihood probably gone.

Wouldn't want to be him right now. May depend on how deep his pockets are as to where he spends the next few years.

Outfitters in Zimbabwe would probably like to see him in a dark alley. They would probably mete out punishment greater than the courts right now. How much will this affect their business.


Ndlovu:

May depend on if he is Matabele or Mashona. Will definitely depend if he is Zanu PF or not.

 

[MI Adventurer]

Quite frankly, it's nobody else's business how or why I hunt. The only caveats to that are that my hunting is conducted in a way that it is not: illegal, unethical, or (unnecessarily) unsafe.

If I hunt only for meat or I spend my money in support of a local economy somewhere in the world is of no concern other than mine. Too many people not minding their own business if you ask me.

In regards to this lion: if it was taken legally and ethically, I have no problem. If laws were broken then the offenders need to face the music.

Nature isn't kind nor is it particularly "mean." It just is. It also isn't fair, I'd say to ask the slow gazelle, but they are likely already eaten.

 

[Wheels]

How much faith do we put in our Outfitter?


Do we know where we are hunting in a free range area? Do we check to see if the outfitter has all the proper paperwork? Do we even know what all the proper paperwork is? I may have an idea, but I am certainly relying on the ph to be in the correct place and to have the appropriate paperwork.

This entire situation is scary.

"There but by the grace of God go I"

 

[Big5]

What will the shake out be for the participants?



Palmer:

Dental practice probably in ruins.

Zimbabwe won't imprison him. There would be a drastic loss in hunting revenue. Possibly fined. Will never receive another Visa.

USFW/Lacey Act. With this administration and their interpretation of the Lacey Act, this could be real scary.



Bronkhorst:

Livelihood probably gone.

Wouldn't want to be him right now. May depend on how deep his pockets are as to where he spends the next few years.

Outfitters in Zimbabwe would probably like to see him in a dark alley. They would probably mete out punishment greater than the courts right now. How much will this affect their business.


Ndlovu:

May depend on if he is Matabele or Mashona. Will definitely depend if he is Zanu PF or not.

And that's before the investigation has been completed and the facts weighed by the so-called scales of justice. But that's of course what the anti's want . . . an emotional victory, facts be damned.